KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.580/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 13/06/2014

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.32/2012 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram dated, 22/06/2013)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS              :        MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.       The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section, Kadampuzha.

2.       The Chairman, Kerala State

Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:   B. Sakthidharan Nair)                   

                   Vs

RESPONDENT:

          Muhammed Ali, S/o. Mohammed,

Ayanikkunnan House, Punnathala P.O.,

Tirur Taluk, Malappuram-676 552.

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.32/12 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram who preferred this appeal.  The finding of the Forum is that the opposite parties issued the bill by changing the tariff without jurisdiction and the bill was cancelled.

          2.  The case of the complainant is that he was issued with a demand notice with disconnection notice on 19/01/2012 to pay a sum of Rs.20,750/- as energy charge in Consumer No.8222-7.               The complainant was conducting an agency shop of Arya Vaidyasala for his livelihood.  On 13/01/2012 an inspection conducted in the premises of the complainant, the complainant was included under tariff VII A for using additional load of electricity. The complainant was regularly paying under tariff VII B and the demand notice was issued without any basis.  The complainant alleges that natural justice was denied to him by changing the tariff without any notice.  The complainant was also given the disconnection notice for non payment of the bill issued by opposite parties.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which is to be compensated and also to cancel the demand notice issued by the opposite parties.

          3.  In the version the opposite parties contended that the complainant was using excess electricity against the tariff allotted to him.  It is admitted that the complainant was under LT VII B tariff and he was permitted to use 160 watts electricity.  On inspection conducted on 13/01/2012 it was found that the complainant was using 2630 watts electricity and prepared the Site Mahazar.  The complainant is liable to pay for the additional load and in order to use additional load the details of wiring and the completion report are to be submitted and the load has to be regularized.  The complainant was using unauthorized electricity for commercial purpose and as such he was included in the LT VII A tariff and issued the demand notice for Rs.15,002/-.  The consumer is bound to inform the opposite party in order to change the connected load.  For change of tariff, he is also bound to pay the additional deposit as per the Electricity Act.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite party is entitled to disconnect the electricity connection as the complainant used the additional load illegally.  The complainant caused financial loss to the opposite parties and the complaint is only to be dismissed. 

4.  Both parties filed affidavit in lieu of examination and produced Exbts: A1 to A6 on the part of the complainant and Exbt: B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite parties.  No oral evidence adduced by both parties. 

5.  Though notice was served on the respondent, respondent remained absent.

          6.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Forum Below cancelled the bill by misconceiving the tariff order Under Section 86(1)(f) of Electricity Act 2003 and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2006 1KLT-529.  In order to change the tariff for the purpose of an individual consumer the approval of the Electricity Regulatory Commission is not warranted.  As per the Section 86(1)(f) confers power on the Electricity Regulatory Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes between licensee and generating companies and to refer dispute for arbitration.  In this case, the respondent/complainant is neither a licensee nor a generating company within the meaning of the section.  It is argued that the Forum erred in cancelling the bill and also holding that it is open to the opposite parties to place the matter before the Electricity Regulatory Commission to fix the tariff.  It is clear from the section that the Regulatory Commission cannot determine the dispute of consumers as adequate grievance redressal mechanism has provided U/S 42(5)(6) and (7) of Electricity Act 2003.  The change of tariff is a matter coming within the realm of pricing, the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act does not hold jurisdiction to determine the matter.  In this case, on an inspection conducted on 13/01/2012 it was found that the complainant was using additional load of electricity illegally against the allotted 160 watts.  He was using 2630 watts as excess energy and the tariff categorically has to be altered from LT VIIB to LT VII A. It is mandatory for the consumer to submit appropriate wiring completion report and has to regularize the load.  Further a consumer has to remit the additional deposit with the Electricity Board.  The complainant had not remitted any additional deposit and he was using additional electricity.  The appellant issued the demand notice for additional electricity consumed by the respondent and the respondent is liable to pay the amount.  There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants and the order of the Forum Below is only to set-aside and the respondent is liable to pay the additional bill.

          7.  On hearing the Counsel for the Appellant and on going through the records,  we find that a demand notice was issued to the respondent/complainant for an amount of Rs.20,750/- as per       Exbt: A1 and A2.  The complainant approached the Consumer Forum for the cancellation of bill.  The complainant was issued with bills for LT VII B regularly whereas the opposite parties issued a demand notice for Rs.15,002/- which is not payable by the complainant.  On enquiry it was informed that the complainant was using additional load and issued the bill for Rs.20,750/- without any notice.  The complainant was running a shop for his livelihood. Hence the complainant approached for an injunction against the disconnection of electricity before the Forum Below.  The opposite parties produced Exbt: B2, Site Mahazar, to prove that an inspection had already conducted in the premises of the complainant.  The site Mahazar was signed by the Sub Engineer and it is also written that the complainant objected to accept the copy of the Mahazar which was counter signed by 2 witnesses.  As per the Mahazar it is shown that the complainant was using additional watts.  If the connected load exceeded 1000 watts, the tariff VII A has to be changed to tariff VII B as per law.  The additional demand notice was issued as per the mahazar prepared by the opposite parties.  It is to be pointed out that as per KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005 Regulation 52(ix) the Board’s Engineer who draw the mahazar at the time of inspection when the prejudicial use is detected, the mahazar shall be drawn in the presence of the consumer or his representative along with 2 other witnesses who shall sign the mahazar report.  In this case, the mahazar was drawn in the presence of the Senior Superintendent of Kadampuzha Electrical Section and the Sub Engineer of above said section prepared the mahazar.  From the mahazar it cannot be inferred that the mahazar was prepared in the absence of the consumer or the complainant.  Though it is written that the site mahazar was not acknowledged by the complainant, it was counter signed by the         2 witnesses out of whom one is the officer of opposite parties.  We would like to point out that the copy of the mahazar produced as Exbt: B2 was not proved properly by the opposite parties.  Neither the scribe nor the witnesses were examined to prove the mahazar.  Hence the bill issued on the basis of a mahazar which was not proved in evidence and the bill is only to be set-aside.  Hitherto we are not disputing the power of opposite parties to change the tariff.  Hence it is open to the appellant to fix the tariff of the complainant by proper preparation of the mahazar as per law.

          As discussed above, we find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

Sa.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.580/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 13/06/2014

          Sa.